On Thu, Nov 3, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Christian Inci
wrote:
> But my C is a bit rusty, so I don't know a clean way to enumerating an enum.
You cannot enumerate an enum. An enum is just a way to define a bunch
of related constants. If you don't set explicit values, they will get
consecutive values (firs
Hello,
I've tested it now with a value of 0x75 (hex) and it fails.
But my C is a bit rusty, so I don't know a clean way to enumerating an enum.
Greetings,
Christian
On 11/03/2011 02:35 PM, Alexander Morozov wrote:
-1 in this test is only a sample of a bad constant. Do you sure
that S_OK
-1 in this test is only a sample of a bad constant. Do you sure
that S_OK should be returned for any positive argument?
On Thu, Nov 03, 2011 at 09:41:46AM +0100, joerg-cyril.hoe...@t-systems.com
wrote:
> perhaps I shouldn't send this one day before release...
>
> I argue that Wine has no business setting ALSA's period size,
> esp. not to a completely random value like duration/10.
> Better leave it complete freedo
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
>> What I mean is that if the old protection contains WRITECOPY, you won't
>> be able to restore it correctly since you are going to make
>> NtProtectVirtualMemory reject that.
>
> I see. I think that a failure to restore WRITECOPY protectio
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Am 03.11.2011 um 11:35 schrieb Octavian Voicu:
> Crash happens in test_ddsd() in ddraw/tests/dsurface.c:4330, after
> unlocking a newly created z-buffer. The surface is in video memory
> when created, even if it contains junk, right?
Surfaces are crea
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 3:41 PM, Henri Verbeet wrote:
> I'm not sure all that matter a whole lot here though, the more
> interesting question is probably how you managed to get the surface to
> be in the offscreen location without a swapchain.
According to git blame, Stefan managed to do that :)
Alexandre Julliard wrote:
> What I mean is that if the old protection contains WRITECOPY, you won't
> be able to restore it correctly since you are going to make
> NtProtectVirtualMemory reject that.
I see. I think that a failure to restore WRITECOPY protection could be safely
ignored. My invest
Dmitry Timoshkov writes:
> Alexandre Julliard wrote:
>
>> > NtProtectVirtualMemory( NtCurrentProcess(), &protect_base,
>> > -&protect_size, PAGE_WRITECOPY, &protect_old );
>> > +&protect_size, PAGE_READWRITE, &protect_old );
>>
>> Res
